tial configurations may be obtained; in particular, in relation to the weight that each of the sectors has in terms of percentage of the built-up space, the prison’s mission may be defined, if it is aimed at rehabilitation, and thus with great importance given, in terms of floor space, to re-education and reintegra-tion activities (fig. 6.4).
It may be said that from the technical standpoint, the realization of a techni-cally sound, quality project, with the aim of striking a better balance between overall construction cost, maintenance, and management, must at any rate comply with the indications of the regulations in force for other categories of buildings: reducing the use of non-renewable resources, maximum reuse of natural resources, high maintainability, improved energy efficiency, durability of materials and components, substitution of elements, technical and environ-mental compatibility of materials, easy monitoring of performance over time, safety and health.
From the human point of view, the process of arriving at the design, and the design itself, can promote environments that respect human dignity and the sense of belonging to and being integrated into the neighbourhood and the wider community. These aspects are highly important because the prison’s placement, and thus its design, its connotations of material and of sensory perception, can promote and encourage a specific use and good perception of the space, and might have an effect on the prisoners’
behaviour.
Many critical areas emerge from the analysis. Of the two chief ones, the first is the presence of a sound regulatory apparatus that is disregarded; in other words, there are laws, but the political will to seriously come to terms with them and to invest in this direction is lacking. The second critical area is the absence of “architecture” in prison design. I believe that research in this sector must be incentivized and brought forward in comparison with experi-ences outside national boundaries, in an interdisciplinary perspective, so as to activate a cultural debate on the issue of prisons that breaks through the wall of pure technicalism. It is thus necessary to counter the trend that sees prison prototyping as the only solution, and relaunch research and design for the prison as a place to promote the prisoner’s human respect, a place of reha-bilitation for the persons experiencing it, and a place in a close relationship with the cultural, social, and physical setting it belongs to.
Writing about prisons, it is impossible for me to ignore the reality described by a famed Italian prisoner, Adriano Sofri, who spent 22 years behind bars:
“Every time I say this is a comfortable prison, better than in the past, bystand-ers look at me with perplexity; then someone comes up to me, softly saying,
‘Jail is jail; it’s still jail’. Don’t forget: your windows have gratings, your doors are made of iron, and they make an iron noise; a jailer passes through every hour during the night, with heavy footsteps; he switches on the light and looks inside your cell; don’t forget that everyone screams; (...) don’t forget you are a prisoner” (translated by the author).
References
Albano A. and Picozzi F. (2015), “Contrasti giurisprudenziali in materia di (misurazione dello) spazio detentivo minimo: lo stato dell’arte”, in Archivio Penale 2015, n. 1 available at http://www.archiviopenale.it
Burdese, C. (2002), “L’ultimo concorso Per nuove tipologie edilizie penitenziarie e la forma urbana”, available at http://www.cesareburdese.it/pdf/concorso_rid.pdf De’ Rossi, A.D., Ed. (2016), Non solo carcere. Norme, storia e architettura dei modelli
penitenziari, Mursia, IT, p. 5 and pp. 422–428.
Lenci, S. (1976), “Tipologie dell’edilizia carceraria”, in Cappelleto M., Lombroso A., Carcere e Società, Marsilio editori, IT pp. 336–363.
Lenci, R. (2000), Sergio Lenci, l’opera architettonica: 1950–2000 architectural works, Diagonale, Rome, IT.
Concatenazioni, IT pp. 66–72.
Marcetti, C. (2009), “Gli spazi della pena e l’architettura del carcere”, paper discusses in the Seminar Garden of meeting of Sollicciano prison, available at http://www.
antoniocasella.eu/nume/Marcetti_edilizia_2009.pdf
Maldonato, T. (2001). “Progettare oggi. L’esperienza di Pierluigi Spadolini professore architetto” in AA.VV., Le risorse del progetto. Taed, Università di Firenze, IT, pp. 25, 29.
Pirazzoli, N. (1979), Didattica e gestione dell’architettura in Italia nella prima metà del Novecento, Faenza editrice, Faenza, IT.
Scarcella, L. and Di Croce, D. (2001), “Gli spazi della pena nei modelli architettonici”, in Rassegna penitenziaria e criminologica, fascicolo 1/3, 2001 available at http://www.
rassegnapenitenziaria.it/cop/39262.pdf, pp. 340–380.
Scarcella, L. (1998), “Le mille prigioni”, in La Nuova Città, n.2/3 May 1998, pp. 62–68.
Scarcella, L. (2011), “L’edilizia penitenziaria tra modelli architettonici e piani d’intervento prima e dopo la riforma del 1975”, in Anastasia S., Corleone F., Zevi L., Il corpo e lo spazio della pena, Ediesse IT, pp. 53–67.
Burdese, C. (2011), “Nuovo regolamento del 2000, concorso per nuove tipologie edilizie del 2001, carcere e città” in Anastasia S., Corleone F., Zevi L., Il corpo e lo spazio della pena, Ediesse IT, pp. 95–117.
Di Gennaro, G. and Lenci, S. (1975) “Architecture and Prisons”, in United Nations Social Defence Research Institute, Prison architect an international survey of representative closed institutions and analysis of current trends in prison design, Architectural Press UK, pp. 7–11.
Moyer, D. F. (1975), Current theory and application, in United Nations Social Defence Research Institute, Prison architect an international survey of representative closed institutions and analysis of current trends in prison design, Architectural Press, UK, pp. 211–215.
Vessella, L. (2016), L’architettura del carcere a custodia attenuata. Criteri di progettazione per un nuovo modello di struttura penitenziaria, Franco Angeli, IT, pp. 59–69.
Other sources
Dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria del Ministero della Giustizia Ufficio per lo sviluppo e la gestione del sistema informativo automatizzato - Sezione Statistica, Lavorazioni negli istituti penitenziari 30 June, 2016.
Dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria del Ministero della Giustizia Ufficio per lo sviluppo e la gestione del sistema informativo automatizzato - Sezione Statistica, Detenuti lavoranti.
Serie storica semestrale degli anni: 1991 – 2016, 30 June, 2016.
Law 10 October 1986, n. 663, named law “Gozzini”.
D.P.R, 30 June 2000, n. 230, “Regolamento recante norme sull’ordinamento penitenziario e sulle misure privative e limitative della libertà”. nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 195 del 22 agosto 2000 - S.O. n. 131.
Ministero della giustizia dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria ufficio del capo del dipartimento segreteria vice capo dipartimento LETTERA CIRCOLARE GDAP - 0308424 - 2009 Roma, 25/08/2008 Oggetto: capienze istituti di pena - standard minimi di vivibilità stabiliti dalla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo.
World Health Organization (1998), Terminology of the European Conference on Health, Society and Alcohol: A glossary, Copenhagen, DK, available at http://www.who.int
the City Confined
Pier Matteo Fagnoni
Is it possible to imagine a confined space where detainees can find a path of rehabili-tation and re-education? Is it possible to imagine a confined space where the prison officers can live without being confined to themselves? These are the main questions that pushed the design team to accept this challenge, through a design contest. The article discusses a project prototype of a medium-security prison for the custody of 200 prisoners, that has been awarded the joint first prize in the competition of ideas organized by the Italian Ministry of Justice in 2001.
Introduction
The project presented has been awarded the joint first prize in the competition of ideas organized by the Italian Ministry of Justice in 2001 for a “prototype of a medium-security prison for the custody of 200 detainees”.
In 2000, a new Penitential Regulation (Italian Presidential Decree, 30 June 2000 No 230: Regulations for the implementation of penitentiary systems and the measures designed to deprive or limit freedoms) was approved. It sought to bring Italian prisons in line with the rules of the United Nations and European conventions. It is a Regulation which gives voice and emphasis to alternatives in detention. The elements of penitential treatment are made explicit in the Regulation’s content; it is pointed out (Article 15) that it must resort “primarily to education, labour, religion, cultural, recreational and sports activities, facilitating appropriate contacts with the outside world and relationships with family. For the purpose of rehabilitation, except in cases where it is not possible, work must be assured for the convicted or the detained.”
This project sought to solidify these principles: architecture which considers
The penitential facility is from its conception imagined as a city, or rather, a village. It takes into account all the recognized limits for a penitentiary, how-ever, improving the dignity and life of detainees also formed part of the proj-ect. If seen as a community, then the contribution of each person is considered a necessary part. The areas allocated to work, outdoor activities, land (gar-dens), and sports are thus of central importance. Spaces that do not merely represent the exception of the usual one hour of out-of-cell time, but rather - along with the housing facilities - determine the overall design: the exception is then not to work, to almost exclusively stay locked in a cell, and not to take part in training activities or sports. A relationship with the outside world is also essential, both in overcoming the absolute separation – which often becomes refusal, removal of the very existence of the prison from the world
“outside” - both in the articulation of the contact spaces and of the directly functional social contact within the structure.
The prison is designed as a sort of village, divided between empty and con-structed spaces and by the functions which shape the activities. The project pro-poses an environment which establishes a link with its inhabitants and with the local society because it is multi-ethnic, mobile and lively. As in a village, life is regulated by the contribution that each individual provides to the community. It is therefore necessary within the village penitentiary to balance the complexity of the system with a working organization where each inhabitant may contrib-ute to the operation and maintenance of the whole by carrying out activities for its development and maintenance, organization and management.